ᐅ Installation of a Gas Heating System in New Construction 2023/2024

It’s quite interesting that apparently many people here work professionally as climate scientists.

After all the inaccurate models and figures in recent years, I’ve really taken to heart the saying, “Don’t trust any statistics that you didn’t manipulate yourself.” I don’t presume to know what’s going on with the climate. However, as always, only certain experts are consulted, and studies that follow a particular direction are the ones published. Others are no longer discussed.

When it comes to any topic, I support hearing all opinions and believe that the public is intelligent enough to form their own views. In reality, though, information is filtered beforehand, and independent opinion formation is no longer possible.

kati1337 schrieb:

I assume you’re not referring to the pandemic here? Because no minority was proven right in that context.
It was actually the overwhelming majority who followed the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), along with the time needed to naturally expose the rest of the population and let the variants run their course, that helped bring us out of the pandemic. The minority in this context was not correct; instead, they recklessly endangered others and even expected applause for it.

I have to say, you are certainly entitled to your opinion here, but unfortunately it completely contradicts the now well-established scientific facts and doesn’t make you any more credible than those who deny climate change.

Bookstar87 schrieb:

I have to say, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but it unfortunately completely contradicts the well-established scientific facts by now and does not make you any better than climate change deniers.

I am open to sources and evidence, please enlighten me. But credible sources, please, not conspiracy theories. =)

Bookstar87 schrieb:

To put it briefly: once someone lies, people won’t believe them even when they are telling the truth.

Human-caused global warming has been described and studied since the late 19th century, quantitatively modeled since the 1930s, and nearly 100 years later, most errors have already been made and corrected.

Moreover, even the “simple” models from the 1980s are still accurate today.

This cannot be compared to COVID-19, especially since virology is not physics.

Also, the phrase “once someone lies” here implies collective guilt for science as a whole – a ridiculous attitude, sorry. What have physicists done to you?

You cannot base a fixed opinion about facts on distrust in other fields; in what world is that logical?

kati1337 schrieb:

I am open to sources and evidence, please enlighten me. But serious sources, not conspiracy theorist hearsay. =)

I don't need to enlighten anyone; everyone can do that themselves 😉. By now, you can even find relevant articles in the hateful and biased paper Spiegel. Otherwise, one of the reporters who exposed the scam involving intensive care beds, child vaccination, and political pressure on the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) was Tim Röhn (chief reporter at Welt). But I warn you, knowing the facts might shake your worldview quite a bit.

Regarding the conspiracy theorist hearsay (nice term), it is often worse than it really is. If you want a lot of unfiltered information, you will hardly find it any other way. To be well informed, you need both sides. There is enough garbage out there—not only on Telegram but also in public broadcasting.

No, when it comes to scientific topics, I want to hear the facts first. After that, people can have different opinions on what to do with them. It’s even possible to believe that all scientists are lying; in that case, you simply adopt a fringe position.
Scientific discourse works differently. Not everyone can just shout out their thoughts and expect them to be broadly accepted by experts. That wasn’t the case even 100 years ago.
There are scientific publishers and journals where serious research findings are published as articles (and these are not popular magazines like PM, Spektrum, GEO, or Der Spiegel). These articles go through a multi-stage peer review, meaning other scientists in the relevant field examine the results and especially the methodology to verify that everything was conducted according to current standards. Over time, as more research results are collected methodically and repeatedly confirmed through observations, experiments, measurements, and tests, a so-called scientific consensus gradually emerges. If a particle physicist claims to have made a groundbreaking discovery in climate research, asserting that there is no human-caused climate change, they can try to publish their findings, but they will almost certainly fail in scientific journals. Instead, they turn to social media and similar platforms, where they find fertile ground because people generally tend not to seek the truth but rather the confirmation of their preconceived opinions. Once they find that confirmation, they feel validated and stop searching further.

The exclusion of individuals happens by the individuals themselves—that is, when they tolerate truly extremist right-wing elements within their ranks during their legal and legitimate public demonstrations. If the often well-meaning citizens clearly distanced themselves and excluded obviously anti-constitutional groups (which are clearly a minority, as I observed firsthand in Berlin—though they are present) from their protests, there would be no mainstream media criticism. That would be a news story—and that’s it.

Regarding the coronavirus issue, the review process has only just begun. I doubt there are yet clear conclusions within the context of the scientific processes I described above. All the data still need to be reviewed and analyzed, and then these studies and conclusions must go through peer review. Until then, we are still in the middle of the discourse and far from a settled factual basis.